Fraud patterns
Watch for repeat-submission behavior, duplicate receipts, and policy setups that make abuse easier.
Fraud review in Transactions is usually a mix of behavior signals and policy design. The goal is not to reject every unusual case, but to make it hard to game the reward logic with repeated or manipulated receipt submissions.
Patterns worth monitoring
| Pattern | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Repeated duplicate receipts | Suggests the same proof of purchase is being reused. |
| The same image uploaded multiple times in one batch | Indicates accidental or intentional repeated submission behavior. |
| Many operator overrides on the same merchant or threshold | May indicate either abuse or a badly tuned policy. |
| Very low OCR confidence posture combined with valuable rewards | Increases the chance of weak receipt evidence being accepted. |
| Aggressive force-unlock practices | Can hide real stock-control problems and weaken auditability. |
Practical defenses
- keep merchant, amount, and location rules aligned with the real campaign terms
- use manual validation for higher-value activations
- review duplicate and rejected receipts instead of ignoring them as noise
- test negative cases before launch so the policy blocks obvious abuse paths
What the product already does
Transactions already distinguishes statuses such as DUPLICATE, REJECTED, INCOMPLETE, and VALID, and the session timeline helps operators investigate what happened over time.
Duplicate-image upload attempts can also surface as direct processing errors before a normal receipt status flow even begins.